. . . but soldiers are cheated of justice by crippling court bills
SOLDIERS face being found guilty of crimes they did not commit because they cannot afford to be represented in court, lawyers claimed yesterday.
Military personnel of all ranks are being told by the Ministry of Defence to pay bills of up to £9,000 for a barrister to defend them against baseless claims.
Many cannot afford the contributions and so are turning up at courts martial facing ‘excessive and unsupported’ charges without a lawyer, it is claimed.
The Military Mutual (TMM), which offers insurance for Armed Forces families, has taken on nearly 100 cases for free.
The organisation, chaired by Major General Sir Sebastian Roberts, who retired from the Army in 2010, has had hundreds more requests for help.
Lawrence Jones, a barrister who works for TMM, said: ‘The vast majority of servicemen have complained that they simply cannot afford to pay the contribution. In many of these cases, where The Military Mutual have supported defendants, the charges are excessive and are unsupported.’
He said TMM had seen soldiers told to pay from £2,080 to £8,750, adding: ‘In 90 per cent of those cases the soldier would have been found wrongfully guilty which would have been life-changing.’
The amount troops have to pay the Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority is means-tested – but lawyers claim soldiers on small incomes are still forced to pay staggering costs.
Troops facing courts martial over alleged conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland are exempt and have legal costs paid for.
The MoD said that most soldiers pay nothing towards legal fees.
IS he devoid of any shame? Yesterday David Cameron – the man who ruined his legacy with Project Fear – joined the anti-Brexit clamour gripping Tory Remoaners.
Mr Cameron claimed, treacherously, there would now be ‘pressure for a softer Brexit’.
Sadly he is not alone. Even before we knew the full results of the election, cynical Europhiles were risibly claiming that voters had rejected the government’s approach.
In the following days, when the BBC wasn’t treating the outcome as a victory for Jeremy Corbyn, the corporation wholeheartedly embraced this perverse narrative, with presenters demanding from ministers how the UK’s negotiating stance would change.
The Remainers’ response resembled how they reacted to last year’s referendum, with their blatant attempts to twist the past and undermine the result.
As then, they are completely wrong. Far from dominating the campaign, the EU barely featured after the first few weeks.
In fact, the election was largely fought over the manifestos: the Conservatives’ deeply flawed document which weakened its core support and Labour’s endless list of unfunded electoral bribes. The latter stages were dominated by terrorism.
As for the result, the ineluctable truth is that nearly 85 per cent of votes went to parties which promised to honour the referendum result and end free movement, while Remain-supporting parties like the SNP and Lib Dems were clear losers.
There is no evidence for Philip Hammond’s claim to Berlin that turnout by young voters was a rejection of Brexit. More likely, it was a promise of student debt write-offs.
The Chancellor’s loose talk risks undermining our negotiating stance, while EU leaders sow division by leaving open the door to continued membership.
Tory Remainers who agitate to water down Brexit misread Parliament and Conservative MPs. Yes, of course ministers should try to build the widest possible consensus for their approach.
But any attempt to backslide would rightly enrage Tory Eurosceptics, swiftly plunge the party into a brutal civil war, and leave Jeremy Corbyn within touching distance of 10 Downing Street.
Is that really what they want?